Jonestown Bartender

It's okay but hard style will always be my favorite.

Cryogenically frozen neo-fascists? In my experience, arguments that use this kind of language gets unhealthy after some time.

That was a joke, you know Walt Disney and all. Btw I said crypto thats different then neo.

. I hope she was only joking in light humor when she acted incredulous that my crybaby sister and I aren't the same person.

I have no idea what you're trying to communicate there.

The writing isn't awesome,

Do you mean grammar wise? because yeah I have really awful grammar, it's something I'm trying to improve.

Regarding Beowulf, I apologize. My understanding of him isn't complete since in my literature class we only read excerpts. However, I do remember certain descriptions of Grendel, including that "his thoughts were as fast as his teeth or his claws" and that he "delighted in murder". He had enchanted the weapons of his enemies so that they were useless against him. That's more than just a hungry bear.

The first quote only implies that he was clever, if I was a hungry and I killed something I'd be pretty happy too, and preventing people from harming him is just as fair as people retaliating.I think you're taking the bear metaphor to literaly. How about Grendel is no more evil then a fox killing rabbits, it just happens that we're the rabbits and Grendel was th fox.

Either Grendelmom and the dragon, being cut from the same cloth as Grendel, are just savage bears and animals, or Grendel launched an unprovoked attack on Heorot because he was a dick who didn't know how to ask his neighbors to calm down. You can't have it both ways. Either way, Beowulf's actions are more like the hunter defending humans. from, you know. Monsters. This is a time before Disney and what not popularized the idea of the misunderstood monster like the Beauty and the Beast movie. Besides, I'm pretty sure that dragons, generally depicted as capricious and petty hoarders, wouldn't just take the cup with thanks, sip a cup of tea, and go on its own way. They're not like their Asian counterparts at all. Although it would be sort of funny... "Kind sir, would you please stop attacking our lands?""Why, certainly, young king. When I woke up and found that my cup was missing, I flew into a frightfully terrible rage. I am soooo sorry for that.""Thank you, good dragon. Perhaps afterwards, we could reconvene for a cuppa tea?""I would like that very much." But I do agree on the aspects that it's not necessarily wise to try to apply Christian morals to a semi-historical love song to

Then we're thinking the exact same thing. I keep saying its a "Holy ###### this guys so awesome he goes off and fights monsters which act on animal instinct" story which it is. It's about a guy who goes off and kills a bunch of monsters it's not a christian parable with all the morals and character development that Kraggh is trying to inject into it. On horror stuff, Theres so many clichés and archetypes that it's almost impossible to avoid. I like horror, I enjoy reading it but it's a very formulated style now because theres only so many things that are scary. I'd suggest not worrying about it too much but constantly ask yourself "Have I read this before" and if it seems to similar consider re-writing it.

Is that a space marine from starcraft? I swear that looks just like a spec marine.

Thanks man, glad I was able to spook you a bit. I'm considoring writing more horror to get me in the mood for the season.

Beowulf died because he was a glory seeker who felt honor bound to fight a dragon that represented greed, which as far as I could discern was an ideal of England back in the day. Meanwhile, he was constantly portrayed as being a man of God and ultimately being tankful to God for all of his success. Meanwhile, Grendel's hatred was mentioned several times throughout the story and his sentiments were described in high detail. He was described several times as being without God and did not dare to touch the throne of Hrothgar out of fear of God. Compare and contrast Beowulf with Grendel: there's a moral there.

I don't think you've actually read the real beowulf. The only motivation even hinted for Grendel was greed and revenge if that makes him evil Beowulf is just as bad because glory seeking is a form of greed. The conflict between Beowulf and Grendel's mother is even less defendable because she was attempting to take revenge for the death of her only son. The conflict between the Dragon and Beowulf is unjustifiable. If the slave didn't steal the dragons favorite cup we can assume he would have left them alone forever considering Beowulf was able to rule for 50 years and not have a single issue with him. But instead of giving back the stupid cup they decide to try to kill it in its sleep. These are not good people, they're all shades of gray. Everyones acting out of revenge or glory seeking. Stop trying to inject morals into a "HOLY ###### THIS GUY IS AWESOME" story. Grendel was no more evil then a bear looking for food and the mother and dragons actions were justified

Regarding Superman, I liked his depiction in Smallville. Obviously, not all his portrayals are this good, but in that case he was rather interesting.

Who cares? He doesn't change that much between movies, comics, and TV shows. He's two dimensional at best.

Regarding Hercules, I didn't necessarily like the Greek legend, but apparently the Greek people back in the day did. By looking at tales like Hercules you can get an idea of what Greek people valued and what they didn't value as much. Personally, I really liked the Disney character better, though.

Then Hercules is not your hero, you like the whitewashed version thats childish, watered down, and acceptable for day time TV.

Meanwhile, I also mentioned To Kill a Mockingbird, Les Miserables, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, all of which are considered to be great works in literature. If you're going to accuse me of generalizing, make sure that you don't do it yourself.

Actually no you haven't this is the first time you mentioned To kill a mockingbird and Les miserables but thank you for showing me you have taste beyond cartoons created by cryogenically frozen crypto-facist. But anyway Les miserables is not meant for children and neither was to kill a mockingbird.

That many of the media that I have mentioned are targeted to and open to children shouldn't be a bad thing. No, I don't see the problem with that, which you say there is. Why be so condescending? The crux of your argument is that there is no right or wrong way to write, and yet you tell me if I don't see what's wrong with childish movies, then you give up.

No my problem is that you keep writing things in a matter of fact way "this is the only way to do it" kind of thing. So I argue with you over the benefit of writing in this style. Whats wrong with using these things as inspiration for your writing is that they only allow you to use childish themes and explore childish concepts in a manner appropriate for children. You can't have a book about drug use, gender issues, or poverty using such a simple outlook and frankly the only thing writing childishly is good for is writing for children.

I do feel that there is a difference between media that's specifically geared toward children and media that's geared toward family. Something that's geared toward children is Teletubbies. There are some things for children that older viewers and readers might have difficulty liking, whereas there are some stories that people never really outgrow.

I'll give you that there is all inclusive media, but love in the time of cholera is for adults and Pokemon is for children.

Yes, I cried at the end of Toy Story 3. That does not mean that I have serious emotional issues. It was the first time that I had cried at a movie in about the five years it had been since I sawSchindler's List. To make it clear, I don't cry at movies very often because of that film. Toy Story 3 was the only exception because there were so many parallels to my life in that film about growing up and moving on. You could make the argument that anyone who cries at movies over the deaths of fictional characters has serious emotional issues. I don't see the difference between the death of an animated lion versus the death of the innocent man in The Green Mile. They're both fictional. I do not judge people who cry at films.

I'm starting to think people who cry at movies don't have anything worth crying over. You do have some kind of problem if all it takes to set you over on edge is a well executed scene and you should be kept away from revolutionary media. I would appreciate if you stopped mentioning god, godliness, and sin. I feel like you're trying to bait me into breaking the religions rules.

Something thats marketed towards children is intended for children is childish. Yes they majority of BZPers have childish taste, thats why they're still on here.

Having a toy line does not make the source franchise childish. Halo has action figures. I've seen toys of Freddy Krueger and Jason Vorhees. BIONICLE is based around a toyline, and yet here we all are.

Halo is mostly played by 11-19 year old boys so yeah its pretty much for children. I hate to break it to you but bionicle is for children.

No, they don't have serious emotional issues. I was considered weird at college for NOT crying when Little-foot's mom died in The Land Before Time. By pretty much everyone. In both those examples, they're watching a young child cope with a parent's death, regardless of species. It's not weird to have an emotional reaction to that.

I've never met someone who cries at animated animal deaths. I think you're starting to take this personally but everything you mentioned is specifically marketed towards children.

They have serious emotional issues if they cry when an animated lion dies. A few people clinging to their youth does not make a card game and cartoon something acceptable for adults. Star wars had a massive amount of toys almost from the start.

Thank god wrack to the rescue.I was starting to think I was alone here.I'm pretty sure there were no real morals in Beowulf, it's more along the lines of "holy ###### this guys so awesome he killed a goblin thing and a bog monster and fought a freaking dragon! This story is so gonna take my mind of starving, being sick, and living in a hovel with no air conditioning! Did I tell you he killed a bog monster?"

Childish movies...Beauty and the Beast, okay. The Lion King, Toy Story. But those Disney films are still awesome nevertheless and for all ages. I wouldn't call them childish, especially in a demeaning way. Star Trek, Star Wars, Julius Caesar, and Lord of the Rings? Come now, those aren't childish. Some of them weren't even movies. And I go back to them because it's helpful to draw comparisons and examples. Yes, I did read the entirety of you post, although I also read your tone. Directing the words "laughable" and "juvenile" towards me tends to give a strong impression. Meanwhile, what I have been saying haven't been rules, per se, merely observations. These are elements of style that are often overlooked. Flaws are one aspect of creating a complex character, but I focused on them since the principles of black and white vs. gray are prominent in this discussion. There are of course many other aspects to people. Regarding what you said about Beowulf and Hercules earlier, I did neglect to mention to value of epic heroes. What often defines epics, using the technical definition used in my literature class, is that the hero embodies the values of society. Hercules embodies the values of ancient Greece, Beowulf the values of old Britain, and Superman is a more contemporary symbol for the values of America. In fact he was once introduced as standing for "Truth, Justice, and the American way", although that last part has been opted out, which I am in support of because I feel he still stands for the Western values anyway without the need for an introduction to spell it out. But that's merely an observation. To further this dialogue into other area, I feel that a protagonist should be likable. Obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't like them. In my writing, a lot of what I feel makes my characters likable are traits that are good and wish that I have myself. Yes, they are flawed, but that helps draw me in and make it seem more plausible that I can be like like the heroes that I admire. It gives me a little more hope. It makes me feel a little better. Perhaps it makes the story a little more powerful. Then there are characters who are likable because they are awesome. Mewtwo. He's awesome. How nice is it to have an anti-hero who allows me to escape from some of my own inhibitions and pretend that I can be powerful and intimidating and charismatic all at the same time like him? That sure is likable. I have examples of almost all the different styles of writing within my own saga, and I do break a few rules from time to time, although I have a established a few since I want some consistency in the style of the series. Ultimately, I do feel that what is at the heart of the story, whether it's obvious or not, is the struggle between good and evil, from which sprouts everything else. This is my fantasy, so it might as well be that way. Jedi Knight Krazy has summed up a bit of my sentiments:

Though it may not be realistic, I tend to enjoy stories with clearly defined sides of good and evil, for many reasons. It's a relaxing departure from our world of grey and it gives a reason to connect with the hero. At the same time, heroes can't be perfectly good; they must suffer and even succumb to temptation of evil in order to relate to the reader. What I'm starting to wonder, though, is if an absolutely evil villain is actually something to be avoided. Some of the best stories I've read featured a villain who had no possibly justifiable motivation for their actions. Isn't it more important for your readers to relate to the hero than the villain? The only thing a villain really needs to be is a powerful force that opposes the hero. The fact that they use their powers for their own interests may well be sufficiently realistic motivation; after all, there's selfishness in all of us.

I think that he also brought a point that I forgot: it is more important to relate to the hero than the villain in most cases. There are exceptions, of course. I always related more to Javert than Jean Valjean, which is a bit telling. Otherwise, I do also like villains who have no justifiable reason to commit evil. What that does for me is remind me that evil in general results in corruption. One of the morals of Beowulf was that Grendel was a monster because of his hatred, because he embraced the evils that we all have in us. In these cases, the story serves as an allegory depicting the severity of all sin, which I find to be just as important a moral as any. Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

again tl;dr. Everything with the exclusion of Julius Cesar is childish and Mewtwo is from a card game. If you can't see whats wrong with this then I give up. You keep forgetting to mention how and why Beowulf died.

I wish I could tell you but if I knew I would be publishing.

Thank god you've found the note pad. My name is Frank Kamac and I'm a building inspector. Please listen to me and don't finish reading this note pad, just turn around and walk out the door, there are things here and you just need to leave and forget this place. If you're reading this I hope to god you took my note pad out with you because if you didn't the doors to the funhouse should be closing right about now. My name is Frank Kamac and I'm a building inspector, I was sent here by the state of Vermont to condemn the old fair grounds. If I remember correctly (I'm almost sure I don't, I am very hungry and thirsty), the grounds were normal as long forgotten fair grounds could be. I mean, the kind of places where thousands of people used to gather are always scary and surreal when they're abandoned. It's especially scary to me; I remember when this place was alive and beautiful. The lights of the rides and games mixed with the sound of music. The droning of aimless light hearted conversation filled the air. My nostrils were invaded by the smell of batter frying. It was an all around warm feeling, troubles were left outside the gates and only life and happiness could be found here. But that was many years ago, the light bulbs are missing or broken. The bandstand has rotted way leaving nothing but the concert foundation. I believe that the fryers were sold to that burger shack on south street right after the grounds closed. There’s noting left here but a few buildings and the iron skeletons of rides. I started off my inspection with midway. As I said before all the rides are rusted skeleton looking shells of their former glory. No amount of nostalgia could make anyone think they're safe. I moved father down the midway crossing off buildings as I went, most had completely collapsed but then I saw something out of place. It was the house of mirrors; it looked like it was still in half decent shape. I never liked the house of mirrors even as a child. The carny that owned it scared me a great deal. In my teenaged years I found out my fears were justified. The carny had been caught attempting to slash to death a child for breaking one of his mirrors. The carny was arrested and the fair grounds sued to bankruptcy. Since the building looked like it was in good shape I was required to have a look inside. I figured just a little peek inside the door and I could leave it forever. I slid the bolt holding the heavy aluminum door closed and walked inside. Every single mirror was shattered, like someone had come through with a hammer and bashed them all in a fit of rage. I walked closer to the mirrors when I heard the door slam behind me with a resounding crash. I tried to open it but it was too heavy, I tried smashing at the hinges with my suitcase but it was no use. My only option was to look for another door (They have to have another door right? Who builds something with one door?) I wandered the darkened hallways using the small amounts of light coming through the holes in the roof to navigate. After wandering for quite sometime I finally found a straight hallway with no mirrors. I squinted my eyes and I saw another door. I was so happy that I had finally found a way out I was beginning to think that I was trapped forever. I grabbed the door handle and let out a yelp. It was hot! Like someone had lit a large fire on the other side. My hand was badly burned I had to rip a bit of my suit to bandage it. At that point I broke down, I just sat down and cried. I had no idea how long I had been trapped in here, I had no idea if I was going to get out, I had no idea about anything at all. So I just cried. I eventually stopped crying and fell asleep on the dusty floor. When I woke up again the sun had gone down. I decided it would be best if I look for walls near the outside and try to break through to freedom. As I left the mirror-less hallway to start my search something seemed off but I continued to search, gently hitting the mirrors to see if had found the edge of the maze. Then it hit me; I was taping on mirrors, not the wood backing. I stumbled back in shock. All the mirrors had been fixed; every last mirror was perfect and clean. Not just mirror clean but they were like liquid metal they were so clean and clear. I thought stress might be getting to me so I had to touch the mirrors to be sure. The edges were smooth and warm. I moved my hands from the corners inward, probing every inch. The center of every mirror was hot enough to light a cigarette but the heat did not radiate off the mirrors. I don’t know how many hours I spent moving my hands around the mirrors it was just so bizarre that I couldn’t get my mind off the mirrors. I had to touch them I had to feel them. Eventually I was able to stop groping but at least one hand had to be on a mirror always. I don’t know why I didn’t question this behavior at the time, it just seemed natural too me. It’s strange now that I think about it but without the suns light I made many realizations. The first was this place was too big, the second was my clothes had fallen apart as if they had aged decades in the time I had been trapped but I kept wandering until I collapsed. When I woke up once more I realized I was in some kind off basement. I found the stairs and realized a made a right turn out of the mirror-less hallway instead of a left. I rationalized not noticing the stairs by saying I was dehydrated and not thinking properly. The mirrors on had been shattered where as the mirrors in the basement were not. I decided to spend most my time in the mirror-less hallway since I felt it was the safest. I debated in my head if I should wrap my suit around my good hand and try to open the back door. One part of me said it would protect me from the heat but another said my jacket would burst into flames as soon as a touched it. I kept this debate in my head going as long as possible I felt it was a good way to distract myself from the whole situation. The sun went down again and the reflections form the shattered mirror in the dark really started too disturbed me so I headed downstairs again. As soon as my foot touched the last step I was compelled to place a hand on the mirrors again. It felt like a natural reaction I couldn’t help it. I didn’t wander much that night; I was too tiered form hunger. I found a relatively clean spot and sat down. I didn’t move, I didn’t think, I just sat and stared at my reflection. I started to doze but every time I was about to sleep I felt something small and soft brush up against me. My eyes popped wide open every time this happened but I was too tired to react any further and far too tired to move away. The dozing and brushing kept up for what felt like hours but eventually I was allowed to sleep I was woken up with a jolt, there was an impossibly loud screech coming from what seemed like all directions. I woke up in such a state of shock that I didn’t even think, I just started running for the stairs. I ran faster then I ever had up those stairs and not even thinking, as soon as I reached the top I turned into the mirror-less hallway. My mind snapped at the thought of being burned by the door but I couldn’t stop running. I crashed into it with a thump. To my amazement I was not burned! I stood up and quickly grabbed the handle with my good hand and I wasn’t burned! I quickly ripped the door open to see nothing but a brick wall. My mind started to race “Why would someone put a door in front of a brick wall! How was the door hot there’s nothing behind it! “ I felt the rage build inside me. I grabbed my suitcase and started smashing at the wall. I was so filled with anger that I got and adrenalin rush. I just started hammering away at it like a machine and that’s when it happened; the wall cracked and a few bricks fell. All my anger and rage quickly turned to hope. I started removing bricks from the hole I had made with my suitcase and slowly took apart the wall. When I ripped a hole big enough to step through I realized it was another stair well. It led down to a hall way lit with florescent lights. I decided to take the left turn. It led me to the basement mirror maze. It turns out they were one-way mirrors which opened when pressed properly from the viewable side. I went back to the stairs and went straight this time. I followed a long hallway and came to another aluminum door. Something sent a chill through me as a touched the door handle. Worried I opened it slowly. What I saw made me vomit. I saw a big room with a medical table with straps, a tray of knives next to it, and several large shelves. On the shelves was the most disgusting horrifying thing I have ever seen and I hope I never see anything like it again. There were at least thirty jars with the preserved partially dissected bodies of children. As I looked across the room in shock and horror I noticed a hatch with sunlight coming through it. As I slowly walked towards it I heard a strange wet sound. I looked slowly over my shoulder to the shelves. All of the bodies were staring at me. They looked deep into me with their dead eyes and I looked at them in greater fear then I have ever know. I became a blubbering mass but they would not stop looking at me. They all suddenly spoke in unison: “Tell the others what you have seen.” After hearing that I fainted. When I woke all the bodies were in their original positions. I walked slowly to the hatch, trying to not make the slightest sound out of fear that I would “wake” them. As soon as I reached the surface I ran back into town as fast as my hungry body could carry me and I followed my instructions. I started screaming what I had seen at any person who came in my path. I was soon arrested and taken to the hospital. The doctors said I was severely dehydrated and delirious and that what I saw was all hallucination. To this day no one believes me. I came back and left this note pad for anyone who’s stupid enough to enter. If you’re trapped like I was, when you enter the large room in the basement, please don’t turn your head no matter what sounds they make. I can still see them in my head. They won’t leave you after you leave the house of mirrors. They made me write this, they won’t leave me until the others know! They won’t leave they won’t leave they won’t… ---------------------------------------------------------- I didn't edit for grammar because I'm a horrible editor.

Who said writing should be easy?

Why do you keep going back to movies especially childish ones? If you notice in my post I said there was no wrong or right way to write a story, in the last few post I've been talking about what I like to do. I see so many people limiting themselves by setting up rules for their stories "There has to be morality" "there has to be a hero" "there has to be an easy to understand tangible conflict that can be easily resolved" Writing doesn't need anything. There's no formula or method. you just do it. Oh and BTW flaws do not a complex character make, it just makes them two dimensional. You're still one degree separated form an actually likable character and two degrees separated from a complex character.

...I'm not talking about the movie. If you read the book you'd realize that Brad pit is the kind of person Tyler Durden hates. I'm not writing so that someone can read my words and say "Whelp that was pretty entertaining, guess that killed a few hours" I'm writing to make people think. I want people to come off feeling uncomfortable and unsatisfied after reading my words.

You don't always need brushes to paint a good picture, you just need some creativity and skill. I find it appalling that you belittle going off the beaten path of story telling by comparing it to smashing your head on a canvas.

Fight club, Choke, The Naked Lunch, Do androids dream of electronic sheep to name a few. Unresolved conflict is a favorite theme of transgressive writers.

I said no tangible conflict , many exsestential, surreal, and impersonistic works have conflict much deeper then good guy vs bad guy or a problem that must be solved.I don't think that conflict resolution is important for story telling.

Is still don't see why a story needs a villan, many of the worlds bed book have no villan or tangible conflict.

Why does a story even need a villain?

I think morals are important to a story but black/white morality can really kill a story

I have to ask, is this topic analogous to the old "Writers" topic, or is it not so general? In either case, since you do specifically ask for advice, I have come up with a few philosophies on writing in the last half year:- Contrary to the opinion of my Calculus friend, I do not believe that the quality of a story is defined by how well it targets a base audience. By his definition, works such as Lord of the Rings were poorly written because they were "obviously meant for a younger audience" but "tactlessly not written in a style appropriately for that audience". While an audience is something to keep in mind, it should not define a story because a story should first and foremost have a voice, which is one of the basic principles of writing. The story has a soul, and it is the job of the author to fully realize that, which leads to the next point:- Don't twist a story into something it's not. By all means, be natural. Usually your first impression of the story when you conceive the idea holds the key to what's at the heart of the story. Build everything off of the heart of the story. If you know what kind of story you're writing, then you can make it better.- Illustrations are okay if they fit your story. Steve from Calculus would beg to differ, which was the biggest disagreement that we had. There is and always will be the philosophy that "readers prefer to see things in their own head". Okay, there is truth to that. Steve from Calculus preferred illustrations that only detailed things that had no significance to the story so that the reader could imagine the more important things for themselves. No, that is just ridiculous. I don't know how he came to that extreme. I'm fine if that's the way he personally prefers things, but his writing philosophy is way off if he's going to try and press it on me. My attitude is that illustration can be good because the importance of showing instead of telling, and for many people writing actually attracts them to the book. Furthermore, illustrations do not have to be only for a younger audience. They can be applied to more serious books as well. In my own writings, the case for illustrations lies in that the story is bold. Illustrations are bold. Illustrations will also add to the sincerity of my story, or so I believe. They will also provide an enhanced atmosphere that gives the story a distinct feel. Yes, the appearance of various aliens, places, and sci-fi objects is important to me. That's part of what sci-fi is.- A professional actor once said that style was "knowing what kind of play you're in". This definition, when applied to writing, means that the style of your writing has to match the type of story you're writing. If you're writing a fantasy epic, it's okay to write in elevated language, because that's the nature of the epic. My friend from Calculus would call that bad writing (and in fact he has, so I'm not being presumptuous), but an English teacher would agree that part of the nature of an epic is the narrative style.- If you ever run into my friend from Calculus, never let him tell you that you can't write about a person of the opposite sex. He'll tell you that your lack of experience will make your character disingenuous and alienate readers of that sex. It is possible to write about the opposite sex without having conspicuous flaws that detract from the story.- The character is a real, living person. Your objective is to get to know them. Since they live in the abstract real of your mind instead of the physical realm outside of it, you do have a bit of an intuitive knowledge of them, but you still have to get to know them. There's the first impression, when you first conceive them. It's like being a casting director and seeing an actor, then thinking "A ha! That's the one I want for the role!" No, you do not create them. They already exist. Your job is to find a character and cast them for a role in the story, or maybe you find a person you like and decide to build a story off of them. it is important to remember that you do not create the character. The character is a person. They are already the way they need to be. At first you might have a few misconceptions about them that throw you off a bit. What most people call "revision" is what I call realizing that you misunderstood the character. Never let Steve from Calculus tell you that you dictate who the character is and that they are purely who you made them. That is a lie. Once you get into that thinking, the character immediately loses all sense of authenticity. Other things not related to my hours of argument with Steve from Calculus is the significance of symbolism. Many people have shunned classic ideas and have called them cliches. One writer even said in her #i writing rule: - There is no such thing as absolute good and absolute evil. This is not quite true. While that is important for stories such as the Hunchback of Natre Dame, Frankenstein, Julius Causar and other such stories with complex, relatable villains, there is no need to be ashamed of having pure evil villains. Sometimes it's good for the moral of the story to be that villains are outcasts because they are evil and not evil because they are outcasts. In various classic epics, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Beowulf, Harry Potter, and the first and last scenes of Fantasia 2000, there is a distinct dividing line between good and evil, and many of the villains are pure evil. Is does not make them bad pieces of drama, though. Epics often take on the nature of good versus evil. It's not cliche: it's classic. There's nothing wrong with that, and this leads me to my main point about many lasting works within culture. Cultural icons spur from literature and drama that targets the dreams that we all share. Why does Superman appeal to us? He shouldn't be good literature because he's too perfect. Let's face it: he's the man of steel with a heart of gold. Yet, it is because he is ideal that he appeals to us. This is because he's our dream hero. Sure, anti-hero's can be more interesting at times, but there needs to be a man who is the universal symbol for heroism. There needs to be the hero that's always the man we want him to be. Superman is that man. We all wish, to some degree, that we could be Superman, because we all like to think that in tough times we will make the right decisions. He is the hero who does those things, and because this do-gooder is so prominent in fiction, he gives us hope. He is the symbol behind which some people find strength. By wearing shirts with the Superman shirt, aren't we inherently subscribing to his ideals? Likewise, we as a society also need symbols of evil. Sometimes they can be caricatures, but that's okay. Think of them more as muses. These villains are constant reminders of things that we should make enemies of. We should wage wars against sin. Let's face it, would Malefiscent have been as cool if she didn't say that she was going to stop Prince Philip with all the forces of ######? It was always cool that Disney had the nerve to include that line, but it was brilliant because it leaves no doubt to the depths of her evil. Witches have traditionally been people in line with the devil, and therefore they're as godless as they come. Therefore, we have our Supermans and Atticus Finches with our Malefiscents and Makutas to counter them. INcarnations of good versus incarnations of evil. Remember that the heart of originality of not novelty, but sincerity. There are plenty of original books, movies, and plays that are released every day that are very original, but many of them are criticized for being poorly rendered. Just think of all the original books you've read and original movies you've watched and think of how many of them you've probably forgotten about now. It's odd how many people think will throw away a good story just to add a little more novelty. The other feature of epics that I notice a lot is that along with there being definite forces of good and evil at conflict, many of these forces are given strong symbolism that supports their roles. Superman is in bright colors. Gandalf wears white. Kaptain Kirk would be nothing if we wasn't charming and the only guy wearing gold in the entire crew, and likewise, something very similar could be said for James Bond. The orcs are hideous, ugly things that follow a dark Maia wearing black, demonic armor. Darth Vader is tall and black. Let's face it: we're all suckers for those men in uniform and like to imagine that all Nazis look like Hitler. Meanwhile, don't be ashamed by associating goodness with light and life and evil with darkness and death. J.R.R. Tolkein wasn't. It's what makes great fairy tales. It's also okay to have powerful characters if the story calls for it. For epics, it makes things more fun. It can be done wrong, but there are still times when it's okay. Many people like larger-than-life characters who give us something big to cheer for. Imagine how many fewer hardcore characters in the world we'd have if there was no such thing as Mewtwo, Godzilla, Shadow the Hedgehog, Super Saiyans, all our favorite superheroes, Beowulf, Grendel, Hercules, Neo from the Matrix. Every once and a while it's a pleasure to see a hero who can overcome impossible odds without breaking a sweat (the Toa), or to see villains who are not only pure evil but a true devastating menace (our beloved Makuta). If it happens to fit into your story, don't refrain. Finally, there are other ways to make great fairy tales come true on paper. Besides having ideal heroes and villains, Star Trek portrayed an ideal crew with a sense of everyone belonging. Toy Story depicted a tale of friendship and a journey of self worth that would all like to have. In The Lion King, Simba is the little king we all wish we could be and he has the awesome father we all wish we could have. In Star Wars, Luke Skywalker saves the princess, which has certainly been done before, but it never gets old. Forrest Gump is the tale of a simple person anyone can appreciate who's kindliness is inspiring. It's A Wonderful Life is the tale of a man who has the strength to set aside his own dreams to pursue the things that truly matter to him: friends, and family, and love. I absolutely adore these types of stories. Almost everyone does. Take a hint from great works such as these. They speak so much. Your Honor,Emperor Kraggh

Tl;dr. But seriously I find your generalization hilarious. Not everyone has the same taste as you. I like many people find heroes like Iron Man a great deal more then superman because he built his superpowers and he has many, many flaws. Superman is just that; The super man and if you want that you may as well get a religion. A story doesn't need black/white morality and an epic battle to make it a good story in fact sometimes it can ruin it and make it seem juvenile. I just want to throw out there that theres a reason why most of the films and books you mentioned are most popular with preteen boys. (BTW Beowulf, Forest Gump, and its a wonderful life are no where near as clear cut as you make it out to be and in the actual mythos and not the Disney movie Hercules would be "the bad guy" by your standards) As a writer your job is just to show a little bit of truth about the world with your words, help to peal back some of the scales from societies eyes. You don't need anything and theres no right or wrong way in your writing as long as you make someone somewhere think. Asking again since no one seemed interested the last time. Would anyone like to review a less then appropriate(but not explicit) story that I'd PM to them?